Edited by LashL:
Removed quote of moderated content
The point I'm making obviously relates to people whose children were developing normally, but, after vaccination/ immunisation, rapidly developed brain and other damage.
If you care to supply me with resources, comparable with those supplied e.g. the the so-called Centers for Disease Control, I'd be happy to supply statistics. Otherwise, I'd suggest you collect them yourself.
So, while you are the one claiming that there is a link between vaccination and delevopmental damage you cannot be bothered to actually provide any proof of that. I guess that says all that needs to be said.
At least trusetheeker, though I disagree with the content of his links or his analysis, at least seeks to convince us with actual data, unlike just shouting things and then being insulted when we do not agree.
Yes. That's what is taught, and it's what you have to say to pass exams. However, electron microscopy shows, or appears to show, that cell membranes are not in fact peppered with protein and receptor molecules; they are simply not found. Your 'basic immunology' courses have not pointed this out. There is something wrong with immunological theory.
On the actual topic of this thread, therefore, there are a number of doubts:
[1] There is a chance your child might be damaged by these procedures
[2] There's a chance they don't work properly anway
[3] There's a chance they do work, and that a disease may be diminished by them
[4] There's a chance your child might have some unusual characteristic which should affect your decision
[5] There is certainty that the official practitioners will prefer to avoid serious debate on the issue, because there are legal and financial problems with being honest.
My advice is to do some online research and judge as best you can
Edited by LashL:
Removed quote of moderated content
I've actually DONE electron microscopy. Have you? And thus I know what is done to prepare a sample. Washing things in cold methanol (to start) tends to strip proteins that are not firmly anchored, and the formaldehyde often used isn't that good for protein stability either. Added to that is the fact that electron microscopy isn't really sensitive enough to detect any protein complexes smaller than a ribosome.
Do you know how proteins are generally detected using EM? The cells are first treated with *gasp* protein specific antibodies linked to gold and wherever the gold particles are found, the proteins are assumed to be. Because we know how proteins and antibodies interact.
Confocal live cell imaging with GFP-linked proteins DOES show proteins present in the cellmembrane, as does X-ray crystallography (those few times someone managed to crystallize a cell membrane.
Another method of showing the presence of proteins is differential treatment of cells with solutes.
By then precipitating the individual washing steps we know what proteins are present on the cellmembrane and how tightly they adhere.
The cellmembrane itself is highly hydrophobic and is easy to collect. Again, simple techniques allow us to easily identify the proteins present there.
Genetic information of course also helps. Extracellular and membrane proteins are generated with a specific tag that causes a ribosome to translate to the membrane and produce the protein so that it gets inserted. If the protein has large hydrophobic stretches its inserted, otherwise secreted. Though secreted proteins can of course attach to part of an inserted protein that extend trough the cellmembrane (again, easily confirmed with simple experiments any 1st year biochemist can repeat). And if you put such a tag in front of any protein it IS transferred to the membrane, wether it belongs there or not.
See, I don't need to do online research. I've done actual research in this field.
Thus my earlier question. If YOU claim that the whole of the scientific community and medical community is wrong, then YOU get to be the one proving it.
On to your points
[1] yes, but its FAR smaller than the risk of the actual diseases
[2] yes, but only in a portion of the patients so small that breathing is riskier.
[3] yes, and in fact this is so high that its actually as close to certain as anything medical gets
[4] Of course and any good hospital checks this
[5] As pointed out before, treating a disease is far more profitable than preventing it, so if this is true the pharma-medical profit would be better served by eliminating vaccination and letting those diseases run their course again.
